The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant provided medical treatment to the patients indicated in the list of crimes attached to the judgment below, misunderstanding the facts related to the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The Defendant and I did not have a mutual communication with each other. The Defendant’s act does not constitute “the act of assisting the preparation of drugs between the pharmacy founder and the medical institution founder” under Article 24(2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B. The Defendant provided medical treatment to the patients indicated in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment.

2) Of the patients indicated in the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below, the J, the husband of the J, shall be subject to the Defendant’s hospital’s agent prescription.

(c)

The punishment (1.5 million won) of the judgment of the court below which was unfair in sentencing is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the facts related to the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, the lower court’s determination whether the Defendant provided medical treatment to the patients indicated in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court, the Defendant did not provide medical treatment to the patients listed in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment.

The decision is judged.

① A letter of confirmation of the fact that H pharmacy works in U.S. was accepted instead of a prescription for those who visited the F Assembly member or who were unable to directly visit the Council member due to work relations.

The medical prescription includes that I received a prescription from a patient who assists in administration, that medical examination fees were collected from an internal patient, and that I received them to a hospital by age, and U has first prepared drugs to the patient without the medical treatment of the defendant in the original court and sent the details thereof to the defendant.

The Defendant stated to the effect that the prescription was issued by Defendant.

(2) A written confirmation of the I's fact shall be 1,00 won per prescription of the defendant on the face of a week after issuing a prescription by the defendant.